/m/broadcasting

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Apparently there isn't as much money out there as Time Warner thought... or as much as Vince McMahon thought...

It seems to me that the breathtaking climb in professional sports franchise values the past few years were driven by future income projections that may have been a tad bit too optimistic- we may be seeing a retrenchment coming (Of course if someone selling a team receives offers that are far less than expected he'll likely simply not sell- unless he has no choice)

Well the Dodgers got their TV money for the next 25 years regardless of how many people watch, though not being on TV is certainly harmful to the brand. I'd venture to guess that kids who are just getting into baseball in the LA area are going to be more likely to become Angel fans if that's all they're getting on TV.

It seems to me that the breathtaking climb in professional sports franchise values the past few years were driven by future income projections that may have been a tad bit too optimistic- we may be seeing a retrenchment coming (Of course if someone selling a team receives offers that are far less than expected he'll likely simply not sell- unless he has no choice)

Maybe, maybe not.

The recent climb in TV deals has less to due with their ratings and everything to do with sports being the one of the last and largest carrots cable/broadcast television companies have to dangle in front of consumers. The ability to watch sports in real time is the last thing preventing many, many households from cancelling their cable TV entirely, even if they only end up watching a few games a month. So the TV contracts tend to be much more lucrative for the teams than the ratings would suggest.

Yeah, I expect the bubble to burst eventually, but not as long as sports league keep doing things like MLB's streaming blackouts, and franchise values are going to stay high as long as TV contracts are high.

Of course there's a second factor driving team prices, and that's the plain old prestige of owning a team. A lot of owners aren't in it for the money (or at least not just the money). Simple supply and demand are going to keep the prices astronomical as long as the US (and, increasingly, world) economy is capable of cranking out sports-loving billionaires faster than the leagues can viably expand.

An average of just 45,000 households are watching games on TV, according to Nielsen.

That's a lot of scratch for 45,000 households.

With more than a quarter of the season already played, Time Warner still hasn't been able to complete deals with any major television providers to carry the new all-Dodgers channel, which has left about 70 percent of fans in the region unable to watch games.

Just insane. And those with Time Warner Cable have likely blinded themselves long ago from having to watch Time Warner Cable. Nobody wins.

Yeah, I expect the bubble to burst eventually, but not as long as sports league keep doing things like MLB's streaming blackouts, and franchise values are going to stay high as long as TV contracts are high.

The open question is which becomes the new model: the Dodgers local TV contract or the bankrupt Houston sport channel? You certainly can't call Houston small-market.

I would think MLB will eventually start allowing the teams to lift the local blackout on MLB.TV for an additional monthly charge that goes directly to the team. I don't know the percentages of MLB.TV subscriptions versus MLB.TV Premium subscriptions, but my guess is Premium is closer to 75% than 50%. If true, MLB.TV could just add another tier called Premium Plus which is a lifted blackout of whichever local team(s) the purchaser chooses; the only question would be whether MLB sets the price for extra service or the team sets the price.